The Nonprofit FAQ

Is it important to interview volunteers?
From "Arguments in Support of the Face-to-Face Interview" with arguments relevant to volunteer as well as paid employees at www.lawinfo.com/forum/face-to-face.html#pro (This page is no longer available. -- Ed.):

Despite its subjectivity and conjectural utility, the face-to-face interview (FTFI) remains ubiquitous for at least four reasons:
  1. Tradition. However, most consuetudinary practices, despite their momentum, are ultimately superannuated.
  2. Expedience. Likewise, many self-aggrandizing conveniences-such as debarring African-Americans and females from the boardroom-eventually pass into obsolescence.
  3. Synergy with at-will employment. Errant personnel decisions entail less risk in an at-will arena than in a labor market abiding by a standard of good faith or fairness. Employers adhering to at-will policies are prone to loathe FTFI delimitation, since it may be cheaper to have a high employee turnover rate than to invest in unbiased selection procedures.
  4. Superficiality. Many employers imprudently fancy the FTFI precisely because it is ineludibly pervaded by extrinsic, arbitrary considerations such as complexion, countenance, semblance, and persona.

Complementing the above factors are proponents' expostulations that the FTFI is necessary:
  1. for determining whether the applicant has requisite communicative or social skills;
  2. to obtain supplementary information;
  3. to appraise candidates' veracity;
  4. for selection among equally qualified aspirants; or
  5. to prognosticate whether there will be companionability between the applicant and prospective supervisors or co-workers.
Although these arguments are sometimes legitimate, they are inapposite in the majority of selection situations.

Interpersonal skill. The concerns of Argument 1 can generally be addressed by combining personal or business references with telephonic or blinded interviewing. Most vocational and educational positions cannot legitimately justify more than minimal communicational and social skill prerequisites. For confirmation, one has only to behold the outstanding individuals with including those requiring extensive public contact. There are countless examples of productive professionals whose speech or body language is affected by blindness, hearing impairment, stuttering, severe physical disability, or even developmental disability. Be that as it may, such individuals tend to be excluded-especially from "high-profile" positions-by the FTFI.

As a result, the FTFI should be limited to those few endeavors-such as the dramatic arts, high-level management, and public relations-where extraordinary interpersonal or elocutionary ability is a bona fide occupational qualification. Admittedly, elimination of the FTFI restricts recruiters' inspection of cleanliness and other grooming behavior, as well as eye contact, sincerity of expression, and other cosmetic or vicissitudinary phenomena. Nonetheless, for all but a handful of positions, the probity of such information is likely to be exceeded by the prejudicial impact of conjointly gleaned sensual impressions.

Supplemental Data. Argument 2 is credible only when it is impractical to obtain vital information without interviewing. At any rate, all relevant selection data can generally be procured from a well-devised application form; a resume or curriculum vitae; reference-checking; testing; and other impartial, impersonal procedures. Even when the FTFI can be legitimized by the impracticability of more objective methods, the interview encounter should be structured to minimize interviewers' exposure to extraneous cues. Telephonic or blinded interviewing will often suffice.

Veridicality. Blinded or telephonic interviewing also effectively deters the concern of Argument 3-applicant mendacity. Besides, other methods of application verification are far more reliable than the FTFI. For instance, work history can generally be authenticated by contacting references, or tenure may be conditioned upon submission of college transcripts. If fiduciality is a BFOQ, then appointment could be contingent upon bondability.

Tie-breaking. Argument 4 has impuissant merit, since ample valid, objective data for ordinal ranking of candidates is generally affordable without an interview. As an example, most collegiate programs are able to distinguish among applicants without FTFIs. Similarly, consider the United States Civil Service Commission, whose goal has been unbiased, merit-based employee selection since its establishment in 1883. Objective examinations are pivotal to civil service selection, whereas FTFIs are omitted or standardized. Consequently, nongermane factors, such as political affiliation, are less inclined to corrupt decision-makers. Comparably objective selection systems are prevalent among state and local governments, and many private organizations.

Rapport. Argument 5 is more difficult to negate, at least with respect to nongovernmental employers, who arguably have a right to hire and associate with whomever they choose. Some employers contend that the FTFI helps to find amiable employees with whom they feel the right "chemistry." A kindred notion is that as long as at-will employment is the law of the land, any restrictions on the FTFI will increase turnover and lower efficiency, since employers are more susceptible to terminating employees whom they cannot prescreen in person. Interestingly, similar arguments were once made against Title VII equal employment opportunity provisions. Perhaps it is time to put the chemistry and conviviality precepts to bed, since they indulge an irrational cliquishness at the expense of productivity, diversity, and the long-run ambiance of the organizational environment.



Originally posted 2/25/97